but the earth isnt 100% iron... theres silicon, nickel and other junk
with different masses. do you have those numbers handy?

MrEd wrote:
but the earth isnt 100% iron... theres silicon, nickel and other junk
with different masses. do you have those numbers handy?

34.6% Iron
29.5% Oxygen
15.2% Silicon
12.7% Magnesium
2.4% Nickel
1.9% Sulfur
0.05% Titanium

courtesy of Nine Planets
http://www.nineplanets.org/earth.html

In this list Nickel is the only element that has a larger atomic weight
than iron, and not by much.

Claus-Juergen

MrEd wrote:
I think he means far more important problems, like what do you get when
you multiply six by nine.

I do not think in base13, but that is what I meant.

Claus-Juergen

"LiamToo" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Claus-Jürgen Heigl wrote:
snip
So for every position of chess to store, there are at least 3000
molecules of earth to store it which should be sufficient.
A supercomputer the size of earth indeed would have the capacity to
solve the game of chess, amongst other things.

Amongst other things like poker?

Poker is not a game with perfect information like chess, so you can't solve
it.
Initial conditions, for example the first two cards in Texas Hold'em, are
uncertain by definition.
So you can easily calculate percentages of success with pocket computers but
you can't solve this type of game.

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"LiamToo" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Claus-Jürgen Heigl wrote:
snip
So for every position of chess to store, there are at least 3000
molecules of earth to store it which should be sufficient.
A supercomputer the size of earth indeed would have the capacity to
solve the game of chess, amongst other things.

Amongst other things like poker?

Poker is not a game with perfect information like chess, so you can't solve
it.
Initial conditions, for example the first two cards in Texas Hold'em, are
uncertain by definition.
So you can easily calculate percentages of success with pocket computers but
you can't solve this type of game.

Luigi Caselli

Poker use algorithms, lots of calculations of various ranges of hands,
variances, standard deviations and such poker software are pretty much
in existence. They are called poker bots.

There was the 2005 Poker Bot championship
http://www.informationweek.com/showA...leID=165701734

And then the Man vs The Machine. As to the winner Phil Laak, he claimed
that these poker bots are playing the calibers of above average
players.

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazine/2005_09_42.asp

LiamToo wrote:
Luigi Caselli wrote:
Poker is not a game with perfect information like chess, so you
can't solve it. Initial conditions, for example the first two
cards in Texas Hold'em, are uncertain by definition. So you can
easily calculate percentages of success with pocket computers but
you can't solve this type of game.

Poker use algorithms, lots of calculations of various ranges of
hands, variances, standard deviations and such poker software are
pretty much in existence. They are called poker bots.

And then the Man vs The Machine. As to the winner Phil Laak, he
claimed that these poker bots are playing the calibers of above
average players.

Sure, you can write a program that maximizes the chance of winning any
given hand and I'm not at all surprised that it's possible to do this
as well as the best humans. But what Luigi says is correct: poker
isn't a game of perfect information so there's no guarantee that you
can *solve* it. You can maximize your chances of winning any given
hand but you can't *guarantee* that you'll win.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Transparent Umbrella
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like an umbrella but you
can see right through it and it's
perfect for your grandparents!

David Richerby wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Luigi Caselli wrote:
Poker is not a game with perfect information like chess, so you
can't solve it. Initial conditions, for example the first two
cards in Texas Hold'em, are uncertain by definition. So you can
easily calculate percentages of success with pocket computers but
you can't solve this type of game.

Poker use algorithms, lots of calculations of various ranges of
hands, variances, standard deviations and such poker software are
pretty much in existence. They are called poker bots.

And then the Man vs The Machine. As to the winner Phil Laak, he
claimed that these poker bots are playing the calibers of above
average players.

Sure, you can write a program that maximizes the chance of winning any
given hand and I'm not at all surprised that it's possible to do this
as well as the best humans. But what Luigi says is correct: poker
isn't a game of perfect information so there's no guarantee that you
can *solve* it. You can maximize your chances of winning any given
hand but you can't *guarantee* that you'll win.


Dave.

The perfect information that you need in Texas hold em are you hole
cards, and the community cards, which consist of the flop, turn, and
the river. Then there are probabilities, standard devations, variances.


I don't think you know what I'm talking about.

Do I need to continue or am I just wasting my time?

LiamToo wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Sure, you can write a program that maximizes the chance of winning
any given hand and I'm not at all surprised that it's possible to
do this as well as the best humans. But what Luigi says is
correct: poker isn't a game of perfect information so there's no
guarantee that you can *solve* it. You can maximize your chances
of winning any given hand but you can't *guarantee* that you'll
win.

The perfect information that you need in Texas hold em are you hole
cards, and the community cards, which consist of the flop, turn, and
the river. Then there are probabilities, standard devations, variances.

Perfect information means knowing everything about the current
position. In particular, if I do not *know* what cards you have in
your hand, I do not have perfect information. In particular, coming
up with a probabilistic model that maximizes my chance of correctly
guessing the cards in your hand does not constitute perfect
information.

The well-known game-theoretic result that one player or the other has
a winning strategy (i.e., a way to guarantee that he wins, regardless
of what the opponent does) only applies to games of perfect
information.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Shack (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a house in the woods but it doesn't
work in the dark!